When I've driven past in the last week, i've noticed brackets on the ends that look like they might hold framing for the screening in the rendering? Here's hoping it's not finished yet!!
I've been meaning to go by with my zoom lens and take some close-ups to see what they are.
 
Agreed, i dont think it looks too bad, it is a parking garage after all.

Whether we need a parking garage of this size in this location is another discussion
At least isn’t this one only in the ~400 spot range? When the CPA started talking about a parkade in the East Village I believe they were talking about 2000 spots!
 
C7D59AC5-78EE-4485-BC79-5B55273CD07F.jpeg
950EEBFE-9B8F-4C99-87D3-D4698458D4C3.jpeg

I’m on the side of waiting to see, looked pretty nice today for this block of the city, blends nicely with the district energy building.
 
I really don't understand the logic behind this project.
Parking lots aren't really lacking and it sits next to a beautiful library and a nice underpass.
 
I really don't understand the logic behind this project.
Parking lots aren't really lacking and it sits next to a beautiful library and a nice underpass.
The city needed a project to drain the last of the parking in lieu fund, the lot otherwise is fairly unusable for development purposes, the CPA developed the convertible project (that is probably way less convertible than originally conceived), and there we go.

For a long time the CPA had its eye on a 2,000 spot lot in the east village. We should be glad this is so small.
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is the issue that the City basically forced any developer who didn't build the minimum required parking to pay into the "parking in lieu" fund on the condition that the City would use those funds to build the additional parking itself? Thus, the city is basically forced to use this money for parking and would open themselves up to lawsuits if they used it for some other purpose? In other words, this is basically legal/bureaucratic inertia at work, forcing the city to do things that were put into motion decades ago despite the fact that everyone agrees those things are no longer necessary?

If so, the solution is basically to eliminate parking minimum requirements altogether. Where exactly do we stand on that issue right now?
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is the issue that the City basically forced any developer who didn't build the minimum required parking to pay into the "parking in lieu" fund on the condition that the City would use those funds to build the additional parking itself? Thus, the city is basically forced to use this money for parking and would open themselves up to lawsuits if they used it for some other purpose? In other words, this is basically legal/bureaucratic inertia at work, forcing the city to do things that were put into motion decades ago despite the fact that everyone agrees those things are no longer necessary?

If so, the solution is basically to eliminate parking minimum requirements altogether. Where exactly do we stand on that issue right now?
You’re essentially right, although parking-in-lieu has been revamped to be less extortionate, it still exists and funds can now be allocated to projects aside from parkades. I doubt any developer who paid into the previous parking-in-lieu fund would have cared had the City used those funds elsewhere, it is a sunk cost and it’s not as if the developers are realizing any economic benefits from these CPA parkades. I imagine the City went ahead with this to maintain the integrity of the previous policy though.

Commercial parking minimums have now been removed from all districts outside the city centre, which is a positive first step.
 

Back
Top